Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 02 Sep 1925
Page 2 Column 3
BANNS BUT NO MARRIAGE.
ILE ABBOTS FARMER'S CONDUCT.
PATERNITY ORDER AT TAUNTON.
LETTERS IN COURT.
At the Taunton Borough Police-court on Wednesday, Sylvanus W. WILCOX, a farm assistant of Ile Abbots, was summoned by Ethel HUGHES, single woman, of 17, Mary-street, Taunton, to show cause &c.
Mr. F. W. WILLMOTT (Messrs. Clarke, Willmott, & Clarke), who appeared for the complainant, said that the defendant was summoned in respect of a male child born on the 24th August, 1924. There was no doubt that WILCOX was the father of the child, because he had a series of letters from defendant to Miss HUGHES, in which he as good as admitted the paternity of the child; in fact, at Langport he had put up the banns to marry the girl, but the ceremony was postponed because he said he had not enough money. It was then arranged that the couple should marry at Monmouth, and the girl had got the defendant work there, but he again failed to put in an appearance. On the 19th December he sent her a letter enclosing a postal order for 5s. On the 25th of July he wrote:- “My dear Ethel, - It is too bad of me not to answer your last letter, but I did not know what to say. I don't know where you got your information, anyway. I did not say I would not marry you. I would have married you in May, but did not have the pieces. If you will carry on for a little while I am hoping to be able to make a home for you. I can assure you I have not changed.”
“SEDUCED ON PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.”
Continuing, Mr. WILLMOTT said that was quite sufficient to prove that the man was the father of the child. There was a curious situation; his parents were respectable farmers at Ile Abbots. His father died last year, and defendant got a legacy under his will. “It is one of those cases where the man won't make any effort to pay,” declared Mr. WILLMOTT, “and I do suggest that if he liked he is in a position to pay a substantial sum to this unfortunate girl. He seduced her on promise of marriage, and left her to keep the child. She has had to work hard and to struggle to keep herself and the child, and this wretched man during the 12 months has only paid her 5s for maintenance.” He (Mr. WILLMOTT) suggested an order for 10s per week.
Complainant, in the witness-box, said that the man was the father of the child born in August last. He had only sent her 5s since then. He had promised to marry her at Monmouth, and she had found work for him there, through a friend, and the banns had also been put up at Langport. “He lives with his parents,” Miss HUGHES declared, “and is able to maintain the child if he will work, but he won't work.” She identified his writing.
“I WON'T SAY ANYTHING.”
Asked whether he had anything to say, defendant replied, “No, sir. I won't say aything <sic> in Police-court, in public.”
The Clerk (Mr. H. T. KITE): You won't get a chance of saying anything in private. - I won't say anything.
You realised that the magistrates will hardly have any alternative but to make an order in that case? - Yes, sir.
A Magistrate: Has the man any means save from his parents? - Defendant (decisively): No, sir.
Mr. WILLMOTT: It is a case that he won't work. - By the way, will you get me a job? That's the idea. I do not agree with you. Give me a decent job and I will do it.
The Bench made an order for 10s per week, and allowed £2 2s advocate's fee.
<NOTES: Silvanus William WILCOX, son of Frederick WILCOX and Isabella Mary MANFIELD>